1%5I 



OBBABV OF CONGRESS 



01 



^899 818 2 # 



pH8^ 



■^^■^^-r 






COMPARISON 



OF 



/assmisii^ mi mum 



m Wa 






^ 



BY WM. HAGADOEN, JR. 



New-York : 
PRINTED BY E. B. THOMAS, 13 SPRUCE ST. 

1851. 





COMPARISON 



OF 



aaiiiiii m§ mmm 






BY WM. HAG ADORN, JE. 



3Me^w-Yozk : 

FEINTED BY E. JB. THOMAS, 13 SPRUCE ST. 

1851. 






Z^ 



/' 



A CONTRAST 

OF 

;ritish and American 

SLAVEHir. 



Many Briti.^li subjocts, upon reading the title of this Pamphlet, 
would, we know, hold up tkeir hands in holy horror at the idea of 
t<uch a thing as Slaveiy in Britain* — in Britain, where they have so 
often and so loudly sung — 

" Britons never will be Slaves ! " 

Was it not all Br'tfmn. as well as England, of which the poet spoke, 
when he said " Slaves cannot breathe in England ! " Ah, so it v/as ; 
and the poet might lune added to the sentiment, so as to make it 
more complete and more true. He might have said : " As Slavery 
is defined " involuntary servitude," and as the gTeat bof^y of British 
laborers do indirectly, but yet '* in^•oluntarily " serve their masters, 
tlie privileged classes, Avith tht^' hard labor — b^ing allowed less 
of their labor's product for their own use than American Slaves are 
allowed — therefore the greitt body of British ]al>orei's are, in fact 
Siaves." Then the poet might have exclaimed — 

" DinsuUe thyself as thou Tcilt- still, Slavery, thou'rt a bitter draught ! " 

And o/ter this, the poet might have added, " ' Slaves cannot breathe 
iu Englamd ' — without having to pay their masters roundly for the 
' glorious privilege / ' " 

We have been told by Mr. Carlyle and other Englishmen, that 
English fi-eedom was the foundation of whatever is fi-ee orVdmirable 



* \V'3 use the term " Britain" fcv coavenienc? ; raeaaiag the whole " United Kingdom." 



4 BETTISH AXD 

in American Institutions, and that thus to British Liberty we are in- 
debted for whatever of freedom we enjoy. There is some truth in 
this — a Httle, perhaps, even in the sense in wliich it was intended to 
be undci-stood, but much more in another seii<;e. It was not tlie 
American soH of freedom, but tlie British sort which drove our fa- 
thers from thoir native shores, to seek, over the tlien most perilous 
ocean, and in tlie more perilous \s-ildemess, for freedom of another 
sort — freedom of self-government — " freedom io woi-sliip God ! " It 
was the British sort of freedom which drove our fathers to the des- 
perate and bloody chances of the Revolution, and it is " the same 
sort " which has peopled our shores, and is still peopling them, with 
those prosperous beneficiaries of " British /reerfow " who love it as our 
fathers did ; and who show their love of it in the same war — bravinf,^ 
all perils, and sundering all ties to get rid of it I 

Tills " British freedom " is called here " O))] nession ! *' Oppression 
peopled our countiy — oppression foiced h.-r into independence, and 
oppression is still peopling hfr with the most daring and lilx-rtv-loving of 
the eai-tJi. And for all this is our country mainly indebted to '• Ihitish 
fi-eedom,"' or rather to those ideas of freedom which are so jieculiarh- 
British : 

We have no national ::)itipathies ; and are very far from ha\ intr 
any toward Englishmen. On the contrary, we have manv English 
friends whom we most warmly esteem. We do, indeed, think that 
uneducated Englishmen of the middle class ari; sometimes presuming, 
and sometimes a little suHj when thej meaM onlr to be dignified ; 
we do think them a little obsequious to those whom they own as su- 
perioi-s, an.l « little arrogant to tho^e whom th.-y Avish to look down 
on as inferiors; but even Englishmen of this rla^^v Imv*- peculiar r//-- 
/«('« as Avell as pecuhar weaknesses. And as tor the other classes ; 
the English working people — those who do not trv to be aristocratic — 
are naturally as fine a set of p(V»ple as there ar<' in the world ; \\hile 
the well-educated classes are perha|)s more truly .ducatt-d and rorintd 
than any other people. We //Xre the English jieoplc, but we do not 
like British Slavery. It seems to as that we hear the «iUcstiou — If it 
is slavery WQ object to, why do we not first oppose American slavery? 
0fe reply — 1st. Because a necessity continues the syhtem here, wliich 



. • AMERICAlSr SLAVEEY. 5 

necessity does not exist in Britain. 2d. Because American Slavery Ls 
not quite so bad as British. 

'• Slaves cannot breathe in En?lar.d," 

but they can breathe here; ay, and "eat, drink, and be merry," too; 
and we know some parts of the British empire where it is hard work 
often to be merry, for the want of that same eating and drinking. — 
3d. We do not oppose American Shivery because, as one of the sov- 
ereign people of tliis country, we are pledged by a holy compact to 
support the institutions of the sister States of our Union, as theh' cit- 
izens are pledged in turn to support oicr State institutions. We (the 
American people) are pledged to support each other thus, as the one 
only means of securlnp our own liberties ; and much as it might gTat- 
ify European monarchists to see that pledge broken, and those liber- 
ties thus lost, yet we will keep that pledge even unto death f As we 
.speak, so do foiu' m.illions of brave men most earnestly anddeej)\y feci f 
And this is both a moral and physical force not to be prefiehed down 
by a. tew thousand Abolitionists, nor scared down by as many seces- 
sionists, nor put down by any other " ists ;" nor even scolded down 
by the Mrs. Grundy of the English press. 

Well, we have stated some reasons for not opposing the institutions 
of our sister States, but we know of no such reasons for not opposing 
British Slavery. We know of no compact by which we are bound to 
support British institutions, nor do the English people, apparently, 
feel bound to support ours. Indeed, just the contrary seems to be the 
case. We shall go on, therefore, with our remarks, and enquire, in 
the first place, who are the British Slaves, and then whether British 
Slavery really is Slavery, according to the universally received defini- 
tions of the term. Li order to get at a proper reply to the question, 
*' Who are the British Slaves ?" it is well, in the fii*st place, to inquire 
who are the British freemen , of whom the world hears so much ? We 
remember seeing an article in Blackwood's Magazine, some time since, 
which, speaking of public opinion, said, (we quote the words ;) 

"There is no such thin? as public opinion in America, for public oi>iniou is the work of 
reason, operating on the intelligent pcrrtfon^- of the people." 

Now, those who are not of this " portion " are, in Britain, three 
fourths of the people — we mean of the human flesh; for, according to 



6 BRITISH AND * • 

Blackwood, their opinions are not part of the opinions of the "puljlic," 
and consequently -we are left to inter that the " lower classes" are not 
" people." The same article states that this Republic- is not a free 
country ; for, says Rlaokwo<:)(l, — 

•' In no coiinlry on earth will <liff»'rence I'roin the opini.'.ns of th«» populact so surely t-x- 
cliicle a man from public office." 

In other words, " the populace " of the United States employs just 
whom it chooses as public servants, (dreadful desjjotism !) and there- 
fore this is not a free country ! lUaclvwuod means, doubtless, that it 
is not free exclusively for the " intelligent portion^'' as Biitain is. It 
is not free for the " people," for it is so dreadfully free for the ^'■popu- 
lace ! " Now, it is this '' populace " whom Ave speak of as being slaves 
in Britain — this '"populace," whose freedom is so inimical to the free- 
dom of the "portion." It is only those human beings in Britain who 
are not considered "people," wliom we t'-iin slaves. AVe do uotmean 
the British people; oh no, only "tlie po]iul:u'e." Were we to concede 
that " the populace " Ls no part of the British people, and that this peo- 
ple comprises only the " portions " above named, it would then result 
undeniably that the British " people " are the freest on tlie earth — the 
most free, and almost the most powerful. Did thi'v not almost con- 
quer America, out of hatred to the despotism «)f the " populac-e ? "— 
Did they not f/uite put down Napoleon, because he was raised by a 
"po]iulace," and therefore a foe to the British people? , Did they not 
" mediate " in India, till they had conquen-d the vast empire of Tarn* 
erlane and the Moguls, merely to secure mono]>olies to the mercantile 
"portion C The British people did not picvisely do all these things 
themselves, but they employed their " populace " to do it. The popu- 
lace were thus kept out of mischief at home, too, beiug employed in 
fighting or in shouting for British " glory." The expeaK' was some 
eight huiidivd million pounds. The Ihitish y^cop/e loaned the money, 
but llity compel "the jtopulace" to pay them the yearly interest! — 
What a /?•<?«" people," and what a convenient "populace !" \Miat 
other " peo))le" ever took such freedom with their "populace? But 
this people have taken, and of course eujoi/ other liberties. Five mil- 
lions of human l:>eings perished in one year in Indi:\ for want of food, 
becau.se of certain monopolies h<-ld by the mercantile "portion;" and 



AMEEICATT BLAYERY. i 

more recently two millions, it is said, of the Irish " populace " have- 
shared the same fate, for similar reasons. In India, the free British 
" people " only hoiight up the grain, and the Hindoos, who received 
their two-pence a day when employed, not being able to pay fifty dol- 
lars a barrel for flour, went vrtthont It, that's all. And as for Ireland, 
the Irish populace had to pay tithes, (often more than the whole of a lit- 
tle farm's nett ^irodiice) and then to pay rent, and then taxes, direct 
and indirect, and the rates," &c., and, if anything to live on should 
not happen to be left over, why the " populace " must do as the Hin- 
doos did — juM (JO without! 

When we come to speak of British daves, we will speak more of 
this; but we are now speaking of the/re<? "British people." These 
"people" are composed, first, of the land-owners; next the 300,000 
government-stock-holders ; next, holders of other stocks ; and next, of 
ship-owners, merchants and man\ifacturers. These principal holders 
of British wealth, with their families, number some million and a half 
of people. After these are their salaried agents and clerks, the learn- 
ed professions, the well-to-do tradesuuMi, shop-keepei-s, hotel-keepers, 
comfortable farmers, mechanics, &c. All these, with their families, 
number over four millions more. They comprise the great body of 
the British Commons, and, with the wealthy classes, compose the gov- 
erning power, the Lords and Commons — the numerous two-fold aris- 
tocracy of Britain. There are some other classes, swelling the whole 
number to about six miUions of people, who, through the votes of their 
adult males, are represented in Parliament. They, it is most tioie, are 
a free and happy people. The}/ direct the British government ; they 
support and control the British press, and they shout for British free- 
dom ! And well they may. They are truly a great and powerful 
people, for they are prosperous, brave and free. But, beneath this 
great and powerful British " people," are three or four tunes as many 
British human beings, whom Blackvrood smeJh at as "the populace," 
but whom Ave shall prove to be the Slaves! 

TiiE British Slates. 

Tins imfortunate class comprises the " hewers of wood and drawei-s 
of water ;" the hired laborers on farms, the operatives in factories and 



8 BKITISH AXD 

mille^■, and, in fine, all those wlio.'^e wages a\crage about 18d sterling 
per day : these, together \\ ith the paujiers. whose condition is caused 
b\ this system — these we terni tlie liritish Slaves, comprising three- 
fourths of the British people. Deducting women and children who . 
are not o])eratives, the infirm, the aged, the paupers, «tc. we shall find 
there are nearly five milhons of operutu'et< belonging to this class in . 
Britain. ITie working days of these peojile are about two hundred 
and ten in the year ; the remainder of the yeai- being Sabbaths, stormy 
or cither non-working days, blue Mondays, and days when the opera- 
tives are sick or not in emplcy. In short, these five millions, earn each, 
alx'ut £\o per year. Is it more than this .' Let us refer to statistics. 
It is known that factoiy oi)erati\ es woik more days, and are, on the 
average, better paid than fanu ialxavrs. as their work is less healthful, 
and requires a skill not so common, \^'ell, the total }»roduc<! of Bri- 
tish manufacturers (exclusive of the cost of raw material) is about sev- 
<?uty-five million pounds steriiug per anmun. Now if the 2,150,000 
factor}- operatives received the ichole of this, it w oukl only amount t-) 
about twice what we haw^ allu\\ed them. i>nt we rau>t deduct foni- 
teen millions as the interest on the capital iuNCsted, we nmst deduct 
six millions for the yearly cost of buildings, machinery, and fuel ; we 
must deduct ten millions as the manufacturei-s' profit, and remunera- 
tion for risks ; we must deduct seven or eight millions for salaries to 
able and responsible clerks, agents, o\ ei"seers, ttc. and a.- nuichmoreto 
defray expenses and commissions of traiisj>ortations and sales. In fine» 
out of the seventy-five millions, if the lalwring operatives get thirty 
millions, they get a larger share than is generally supposed by thera- 
sehes, by their emjiloyers, or by the British statistic writers. But, 
supposing £30,000,000 to be thus di\ided among the 2,1 50,000 labor- 
hio- operatives, it will be seen at a glance that they get less than the 
£15 each. We have taken the readers time tumake this calculation 
ui order to show tliat our estimates were liberal. And they appear 
still more so v/hen it is remendiered that farm laborei-s get no more 
than factory operatives, exce]'t for >oiiie three \\(n'k> in liar\o^t time; 
and that they are necessarily much mure uftm out of employ, and 
lose more days from bad weather, because of their work being mostly 
out of doors. But we will throw aside all these considerations — wo 



AJlIERICAri SLAVERY. ' 9 

will be as liberal as possible to the poor fellows, and allow tliem wliat 
we have said — £15 yearly each man. 

We are fully aware, be it understood, that in Britain there are ma- 
ny mecbanics who can earn almost as much as this iu a mouth. Wc 
know there are many, and we know how many. Of mechanics who 
can earn ai? much as American mechanics can, there are in all Britain 
about one hundred and forty thousand, or one fortieth of the working 
people. But it costs money to be even apprenticed to these trades in 
Britain — so much money, that not one farming or factory laborer iu 
a hundred can buy for his child admission into this patrician order, or 
give him the slight necessary education. By these and other means, 
these trades are rendered a sort of working aristocracy ; and we now 
are not speaking of any of the numerous grades of British aristocra- 
cy. We speak not of exclusives, but of the excluded. We speak of 
the " populace," or the Slaves. We speak of that great body of the 
working people of Britain, who, at the very viost, average £l 5 each 
per year for their labor. Tliese, numbering about five millions, re- 
ceive for their support, at most, £15,000,000 per year ; just about 
what the taxes come to, without the tithes^ dec. 

Let u-s now conisider what Is the amount of taxes paid in Britain, 
and who pays them. The British revenue is some fifty-five million 
pounds ; but in addition to this are the enormous poor rates, the par- 
ish and county assessments, etc., all of which amount to some twenty 
:milhons more. The agricultural product of Britain is about two hun- 
•dred and ten million pounds per annum, a tithe of which is twenty- 
one millions ; and this, added to the taxes above named, produces 
the handsome aggregate of ninety -six million pounds per annum. — 
Nor is this all. It is all that l^^ received, but far from being all that 
\<, paid. We will suppose a British merchant imports a certain arti- 
cle, which costs him a dollar, and which, but for the tariff, he would 
sell. for $1,12. But suppose there is a duty on the article of 50 cents. 
The article itself the merchant buys on credit, but the duty must be 
paid in cash ; which makes it proper for him to charge a higher rate of 
profit on the duty than on the balance of what the article costs him. 
In consequence of the duty, then, the cost to him being $1,50, he 
charges the jobber for the article $1,70. The jobber sells to thfe coun- 



10 BRITISH AND 

try dealer for $2,00. The consumer probably gets it for $2,50. But 
if the consumer is poor — not able to be particular, or to buy except 
in the smallest quantities — the article will cost him ^3.50 in penny- 
worths. The averafje cost to consumers, then, Ave will say, is §3,00. 
If there had been no duty upon the article, the importer would have 
sold for $1,12 ; the jobber for about §1,2.5, and the consumer would 
have got it, on the average, as above, foi- Si, 75 instead of §3,00. So 
that the consumer ])ays the duty at last, and pays, too, several tra- 
dei-s' profits on the duty ! In the case we have supposed, (which is 
a fair average of imported articles in liiitain) the consumer /;«ys 1,2.5 
more for the article in consequence of the tarift", though the govern- 
ment only receiver 50 cts. And this is true of every article which 
pays a duty, for, of coui-se, traders must have a profit on the cost of 
what tlicv buy and sell. Thus it is a certain and well known fact, 
that foi- every jiound sterling of revenue the Bi-itish Government re- 
ceives, at least two pounds are, on the average, paid by the consumer ; 
and a greater proportion than this is paid by the poor consumer, for 
he paj'R a much larger profit on the iiifeiior arUcles lie buys by the 
ounce, llian tlu' lielicr man pays on wliat he buys by the barrel. If 
we, however, estimate this 'profit on tlw duty liy Uic most njodt-rute 
standard, and add it to the other taxes, we will have the aggregate of 
£151,000,000 ! Of this more than a third goes to the government, 
about as much goes to the merchants, tradei-s and shop-keepei-s, as 
their fair profit on the cost and risk that the tariff causes them, and 
the balance pays the parish and ' tln^ county assessments, and sup- 
ports the poor and the church. One hundred and fifty-one miUion 
pounds sterling ! Let us stick a pin there 1 

And yet we shall see that even this is far from biding alj. There 
are a thousand things jt);-oicr/rt/ l)y tlu^ tarift' which pay /*o duty to 
the GovernnKiut — being British or t'olonial products — but to protect 
which enormous duties are paid by the ]ieople. For instance suppose 
a production of (\anada is produced far cheaper in liussia, and to pro- 
tect the Canadian jnuductiim, the Government imposes a duty on the 
Kussian article. The people tlnis are obliged to get from Canada an 
article that, but for the tariff, they could get far cheaper fi*om Russia, 
They pay fifteen pounds, perhaps, for the same article they could have 



AMERICAN SLAVEEY. 11 

bought for ten pounds. The additional five pounds is paid, (nni that, 
too, -with trader's profits on it) though the Government gete not a 
penny of it. And thus it is with a thousand articles, upon which 
millions on milhons of duties are indiuectly but unavoidably joa?W, but 
never received by Government — except as unrecorded tribute to the 
protective and colonial systems. Cut, though these duties amount to 
as much as the revenue, they are not so precisely estimated, and we 
leave them out of the account. If we were to tell the ichole truth on 
this subject, it would seem too monstrous for belief, though it is made 
palpable by the incontestible evidence of figures themselves. With 
these reasons for moderation, then, we put down the taxes paid by 
Britisli productive industry at £150,000,000. 

We say these taxes are paid by productive induhtry; and, though it 
is generally conceded that the producing classes do in fact pay all the 
taxes, yet' it is not so generally understood. We know that, in this 
city, though landlords pay the real estate taxes, yet tenants, in their 
high vfiTit.i, jiay those taxes to the landlord, and that with a profit on 
the Lindlord's added risk and outlay. We have just iseen, too, that 
in Britain, Lliough importers pay tlift revenue, yet that revenue I'eally 
comes from the consumers, and that with a profit to various tradeis 
for their added risk and outlay. A\\(\ as productive laborers form the 
great mass of consumers, so they of course pay the great mass of the 
taxes; particularly that portion which is paid as traders' profit, because 
their poverty compels them to purchase in small quantities, and at 
great disadvantage. All this is generally both conceded and under- 
stood. But what is conceded without being so generally under-stood 
is this — that all taxes come from productive labor, being necessarily de- 
ducted from what the laborer would receive if there were no taxes. — 
The uatioriB 2^''oduct is, of coiu-se, all the nation has to pay taxes z/iiif;^. 
And, though transfer and sale of products are productive lalxjr, too, in 
one sense, because highly useful ; yet sale is not product. 

We can, however, be better understood by citing facts than princi- 
ples. We will therefore cite an example based on statistical facts. — 
By a comparison of Parliamentary and census returns, we find that 
the average product of cultivated land in Britain is about £4. 3s per 
acre. Of this, on the average, one third is stated to be paid for rent, 



12 BRITISH AXD 

one thii-d pays the farmer's profit, and the balance pays the expenses 
■of cultivation. A comfortable farmer, then, with seventy-five acres of 
cultivated land, has, on the average, une hundred pounds for himself 
and family, one hundre«l pounds, to pay his rent with, and another 
hundred tor his other expenses. Now, by the statistics above referred 
to, we learn that there are about fifteen acres of cultivated land in 
Britain to each grown man engaged in agriculture. This Mould gi\e 
U6 five men for the seventy-fi\ e acres, one of whom, we will suppose, 
?s the farmer hinisolf. Four laborei-s. then, on the average, are to be 
paid out of tlie remaining hundred pounds. But there are expenses of 
stock, seed, manure, repaire, <fcc. to come out of this hundred pounds 
first. And then the tithe alone on the ])roduct we allow for the farm 
is thirty pounds, and the county and ])arish rates at least twenty. The 
farm laborers have what is left; but, according to these statistics, we 
can scarcely find any thing left for them. W.- will suppose one of them 
is a }?!iu})er, and so reduce their number to three ; for we have allowed 
them £ib pt-i auuum each; aud, though this. Ls evidently a lihprnl al- 
l(»wance, y«^r. it is notf)Tioiis that those w/io /i<tve K-oyA: receive f)rett7near 
that sum yeai'ly. We see, then, that tlir I;il.oivrs of Britain pay the 
taxes, because, after the farmer's comfortable linng is paid for — after 
the rent, tithes, taxes &c. are all paid — then, what is left goes to the 
laborer — always j.rovided he must have enough oats, potatoes or bread 
to give him strength to work. 

But it seems to us that we hear some British '' pro-slavery" man ob- 
jecting to this, and saving it is the farmer who has to put up with 
what is left. Let us see if this is so. The former hiis capital, enough 
to stock a tarm and make huu a safe tenant. If not, he could not be- 
ronie a farmer. If, with this capital, and with his labor and skill, he 
cannot bo comfortably maintained in one place, he can 2:0 to another. 
if, with these advantages, he cannot liavr a hundred pounds yearly in 
Kngland, for his skill, capital and labor, he knows he can have twice 
that aniouut in this country, and he has the means of moving, which 
is not possessed by one laborer in thirty. The laborer, if he can- 
not get go-xl pay in Uritain. is only so much less able to get oi/t of 
Britain. Ihis is one cause of another advantage the farmer has over 
the laborer. The farmer hires and discharges the laborer. And. al- 



AMEEICAlsr SLAVERY. 13 

though the latter may discharge his master by leaving him, yet he can- 
not hire him at will. These are only the natural advantages of the 
small capitahst over the laborer, but in Britain there are others. We 
know that entail and primogeniture laws <fec. produce a certain mono- 
poly of British lands, and that corn laws and all sorts of laws are form- 
ed to keep up high rents. And why ? Because the land owners of 
Britain have been her law makei-s, and have made laws for their oy\\\ 
advantage. So it is noAV with the " better " class of land renters, who ■ 
have, since the Reform Act was jiassed, held a large share of the law- 
making power. They vote, and laborers, as a class, do not. J'otcrf 
are represented in Parhament, and have laws made to suit their in- 
terests. The tendency of laws thus made is, of course, to keep down' 
wages ; as on this, in a great degree, depends the wealth or comfort of 
that '■^portion " of the people which is the I'uhng power. These arti- 
ficial advantages are added to the vatnrnl advantages -sshich capital 
has over labor, and to the great advantage which the U. States offer to ■ 
the man of some means ; and which advantage is not shared by him 
who has no means — to pay even his passage with. All these causes 
taken together produce the result we see in Britain — that, thouo-h " it 
takes two to make a bargain," in theory^ yet, in sad and sober /or^ tb.e 
wages of lal;)or are really stipulated by the emjjloyer alone ; who, ve- 
ry properly, deducts his own comfortable living tu'st, and his necessary^ 
expenses, and what he finds he can then afford, he agrees to pay the ■ 
laborer — always providing it must be enough to sustain life. Ileaven. 
has given forth the irrevocable law that dead men shall rest from work, 
and that, therefore, if a man works, he shall receive enough to keep 
him ali\-e. The British laborer has this one last safeguard of his 
rights ; and for this he is indebted to the laws of his God, and not to- 
the laws of his country I His country, did wo say ? ^^'e beg l>lack- 
wood's pardon; we mean the country of the intelligent jm'f'On — tlie 
country of the :«ix millions of people, not of the twenty-three millions^ 
of '•'•populace!'''' 

•• I thank thee, Jew, for teaching me t)iat word ! " 

We may thank Blackwood for the distinction. We mean that coun- 
try which is owned and ruled by six milHons of freemen, but mainly 
supported and tilled by twenty -three million slaves I 



14 BBITISH A>'D 

But this is digression. We have undertaken, not to call these un- 
fortunate people slaves, but to prove that they are so. Slavery L^ in- 
voluntaiy servitude. A\'e ha\e not yet shown how the ser^■itude of 
British labor is involuntary, except by inference, nor ha^'e we, as clearly 
as we intend to, shown that it is servitude. "NA'e have exhibited, as it 
■wore, the rule by which to show that British laborers are made sub- 
ject servitors of the upper classes, by systems and laws fi-amed by the 
u}}per classes for that end. And we now design to prove that rule, as 
in arithmetic, by enquiring what those laborers would be ivithov.t 
those systems rind laws. 

We have seen from British statistic tables that British farms aver- 
age seventy-live acres ; that the yearly produce of such farms as'erages 
i'300; that of this, £100 (on the average) goes to the landlord, £100 
to the farmer, £30 (the tenth of £300) to the church, £20 to the pa- 
rish and county; and there i- but £50 K-ft for form expense-.-, including 
labor. We have seen, too, that such farms have (on the averaije) at 
least three laborei-s, receiving, by a liberal estimate, £15 a year each, 
or £45 together — about one seventh of the whole product. ITie hb- 
erahty of this estimate will be understood by British emigi-ants, and 
may be seen b\ all — for it loaves only £5 for all other farm expenses. 
Now, su])pose we strike out one item of expense, and add it to the la- 
borer's wages. Take the £30 from mother Church, and gi\ e it to its 
rightful owners, they whose labor produced it. The three laborers 
woidd thea have 75, instead of 45 pounds to live on ; and the effect 
would be that poor-rates might bo abolished too.* And this would 
increase the wages to at least £90. So th;it, by this one stop alone, 
the wages of the British lal)orer might be doidtled ! Now, the Brit- 
ish Church is richly endowed, (wo do not mean with ( "hristian virtue, 
but with property) and wo do not think the cause of true religion in 
Britain woiUd fail, because of the poor keeping what belongs to them, 
so far as to procure l)*ttor food, clothing and education. 



* Phiianlhropic Dritish '•/"•o-.v/arfrj" nn'ii will ixclaiin against (mr wiiKt of charity for 
the poor. But these humane people well know lh:it poor rates are in I'acI deducted Ihiin 
the price of the poor inanV labor: and tliat a lar^e proportion i:" loiit in the cost of collec- 
tion aiid siip-rintendeiicc, and in pecidhtioii. It is XoiUwv mc-.m. to the poor ; but not to 
the humane ov. rseers, speculators, commis-'ioners &c. who handle the money. The lalwr- 
ers do, in fact, imij these poor rate? ; and they cret back, as charity, but a small pari of what 
is taken irom thuin by the law. 



AJitEEICxiX SLAVERY. 15 

But suppose, in addition to this, that the laws of pvimog-euiture and 
entail, and the thousand contrivances for keeping up land monopoly 
and high rents were also abohshed. The farmer, in this case, would 
be able to spai'e still more to his laborers, and live better himself, too, 
tor the conseriuent reduction of rents. Yet all these changes, mo- 
mentous as they would h^ for the laborer, would not be so great as 
those Avhich might be efiected for him by reduction of the taritf, that 
indirect, yet greatest of all the taxes on British labor. If, as we ha\e 
shown, employers would be abk to pay their laborers twice as muck 
as noAv if tithes and poor rates were abolisiied, it is certainly moderate 
to suppose, if the other taxes on producti\-e labor were abolished also, 
the laborer would get three times as much as now, and the employers 
would get no less. Landlords might not ha^e so much to bu}- votos 
with, and the Church would not ha\-e so much for its non -working 
clergy, <fec. And government would not have so much to keep down 
colonies with, to keep down " the populace " with, and to keep u}) other 
things with. Yet landlords, church and gove»'nment would ha\-e all 
their oivii, and plenty for all true purposes. 

But is it sure that what w^ould be saved /to?/* the church Arc. would 
be saved to the laborer '! Yes, this result is absolutely certain, if the 
laborer had also the right of suffruf/e ; but not otherwise. 

It seems, then, certain that the church, the landlords and the go\'- 
ernment receive two-thirds* of what the laborers of Britain would get 
for their labor, if they had the right of suffi'age, mid if the colonial, 
protective and tithe systems &c. were abolished. In other words, the 
poorer class, or the great body of laborer's, work mainly to support 
those systems, being allowed to retain/or thernselres only about enough 
of their labor's product to keep them in life and strength to do the 
work I Now, what do slaves more than this i Serntude ! How do 
slaves serve their masters i By their labor. And are nc»t slaves 
allowed enough, at least to live on ? British laborers do 1)}' their work 
serve tbeir nuisters (the Lords, the Crown, the Church, and the fa\ored 
^'■portions,'''') and are, by those masters, allowed enough to h\e on. — 

* This, it may be remembered, corresponds with what we said in the begimiLug, as to the 
proportion ihaz :he taxes bear to the wages of labor — five liiiUions of laborers, at £15 each, 
earning X75,0CO,0OO a year ; less than half of the i;i51,000,00(J, (the aggregate of the various 
taxee.) And ii' this latter sum were added to the laborera' wage^, they would, of course, re- 
ceive fully tiu-ej times what they receive now. 



16 BRITISH AND 

Precisely so do our Southern Slaves, and it is just because they do so 
that they are called slaves. Why not, then, call those ]>ritlsh labor- 
ei-s slaves who are also in this condition ? It may be said that the 
British laborer can work or not work, just as he pleases. Well, so 
can the negro ; and though the latter may be punished, his punish- 
ment will not quite equal that of the British laborer — starvation ! But 
again, it may be said the Britu^h laborer is free, simply l>ecaa<e he 
can choose his vocation. Yet this choice does not make a man free ; 
and the laborer has not the choice. He cannot at will become a law- 
yer or a merchant. It is almost impossible for him to become a me- 
chanic, as the negro almost always may if he pleases. The British la- 
borer, it is true, may (jfton choose between the farm and the factory ; 
but as there is nothing to choose between them, he engages, general- 
ly, in what is nearest, and so does the negi'o. If choice in this res- 
pect, then, is freedom, the negro is the fi-eest; for he can generally be 
a mechanic if he chooses, and the liritish laborer cannot. In short, 
there is no difference between the two, as to the fart of tliei'- ser\ itude. 
The British laborei-s, by systems and laws made by their mastei-s alone, 
are compelled to work for those mastei-s, who allow them but one sev- 
enth of the whole pi'oduct to live upon. Negro slaves, through laws 
niade by their mastei-s alone, are also compelled to woik ; but they are 
allowed, for their labor, about tt"ice us much as are Hi'itislt lal)Oivrs. 
There is a difference in the def/rce of servitude, but in the feet of ser- 
vitude there is notie f It is in both cases the same — the servitude of 
labor ! 

We have seen how this servitude is compelled ; but if i> yet ques- 
tioned that this is '• /«<''V?(//^'/7/ servitude," let the '200,000 annual 
emigrants to this port make answer ! Let the ghosts of the starved 
milhons answer ! And if the ''portions'' still pei-sist that this servitude 
is not involuntary, let them give their servitoi-s the right of suffrage, 
and see how long the ser\ itud<- we have shown would continue ! 

Give them the right of sutiVngc un.l what wuuld they do'; First, 
they woiM abolish tithes; and then poverty and poor laws together; 
then piimugeniture, enUiil, and aU high rent laws. Then tliey would 
abolish the colonial and protective systems; and then, nine-tenths of 
the army, kept up only to keep down the colonies and the " populace.'' 



AMERICAN SLAVERY. VJ 

Bi-itannia would lose the fflor]/ of holding in subjection nationji of uo- 
warUke Indians, and indignant, wide-scattered colonists ; but over her 
beauteous and happy islands would dawn the brighter glory of egval 
hberty — the effulgent halo of true freedom ! 

And the national debt 1 If the British slaves had the rigfit of suf- 
frage, what would they do with that? Would they repudiate? Oii, 
not at all. Repudiate ! No ! But, commencing with the miJJionaires, 
they would, perhaps, increase th< Income tra\\\n\\\ this tax should pay 
the interest ! 

"Oh!" say the stock-holders, "they'd be sure to do something like 
tliat ; so keep them dowTi ! " ^ 

"Impious heretics 1" exclaim the fat Bishops, "they wouH dr'prive 
Heaven of its tithes ; keep them down ! " 

" Base workmen ! " say the army and navy ofiicers, " thej'' would 
free the Colonies, and put an end to British gloiy ; keep them down ! " 
" Ignorant laborers 1 " say the wealthy, " they wotrld repeal high 
rent laws, and raise wages ; keep them down ! " 

" Jacobins ! " cry the tradesmen, " they would derange commei'ce ;. 
keep them down ! " 

" Oh, the low, dirty mob ! " says Mrs. (Trundy, " they'd CJt eveiy 
body's throat ; do keep them do\vn ! " 

And last comes Thomas Carlyle, and he says : " Idle rascals! make 
them work ! " 

Yet he seems to forget that the best way to mal-e a man v/oi-k, is 
to let him keep what by his labor he produces. 

But all these, and a miUion more of British •' pro-slavery" men, 
have not the power to "keep them down" foi-ever ! Judging from 
the pa&t, the fixadom of the Biitish laborer may be still delayed a 
century or two ; yet we hope that the time ^oill come when every 
British man will be a voter. And in twenty years ftom ihat time, 
every honest Briton will be 2^ freeman ! 

According to statistics, as we have seen, two-sevenths of the entire 
produce of British labor now go to the landlord or capitalist, two sev- 
enths to employers as their profit, two-sevenths to the Church and the 
Oovernment ; and but one seventh remains for that great d&ss whose 
labor creates it all ! But in twenty years after the right of suflrage is 



1 8 BEITiyil AND 

^vcn to that clas3 entire, a different story will be told by British statis- 
tics. Thtn, of the produce of Britisji labor, a fair, full ha//\\\\\ ]>ethe 
laborer's portion, and the other half -wiW be shared by the employer, 
the capitalist and the landlord. As fur the Church and the Govern- 
ment, the little tliat they will get, will support a purer church and a 
nobler government than those which are now upheld by the labor and 
misery of millions. Then will the Dritish laborer \>e free and prosper- 
ous ; ay, and industrious, too. " The lazy Iri.sh," whom Mr. Carlyle 
threatens to drive to work, in this coimtrj- are tempted to work ; and 
here they are " the industrious Irisli." Let a man kee2) what he pro- 
dui-es, and he needs no driving/ to work. When tliis time comes, of 
which we speak, then will be exposed the fallacy of that swindHng, 
^^ pro-skive ri/^^ false pretence, that British laborei-s are poor because 
laud is scarce. For then, and not till then, will the twenty-eight mil- 
lion acres of British ivaste lands be culti\ ated, of which statistics tell. 
And then, when ''the populace" are interested in the result, and not 
till then, will tlie l>eauteous isles of Britain, all of them, l^e seen to 
" blossom like the rose.'' 

Wheiathis time comes, the laborer will learn that universal suffrage, 
and only that, can secure to poor, swindled, bamboozled, jwotected la- 
bor, all its rights. Then will the British laborer begin to be a free- 
man ; and his freedom will consist mainly in the suffrage-protected 
right to keep what, by his labor, he produces. Of this great right 
most British laborers are now, by unequal laAvs,* deprived, as are also 
the negroes; and they therefc>re, both alike, are slaves! Both alike 
are compelled — by laws* the making of which they have no voice in — 
to sc/'yc others by their labci. This servitude, being thus compelled, 
is, of com-se, " involuntar)/ servitude !" And tliis, in all English dic- 
tionaries, is the definition of that stern word " Slavkrv I " 

The .\>ierican Slaves. 

"VVc will commence this branch of oiu* subject by considering the ori- 
gin of American Sla\ery, fts such. Those Institutions bj- which the 
laboring population of Europe has been reduced to a condition of in- 



*Thc laic which made the ne^ro a Slave, is only the circuraatonco by which he was oriffin- 
alty made so, by his African captor, or the British slave-trader who brought him hero. TFor 
the traders who yir.s-t boufrht the slaves were British, and there are in this country, no laws 
which create fhiverj ; though it is here partly continued, as the least of two evils. Jimcrican 
Slavery is thus inherited from Britain, and partly continued only through humane necessity. 



AMEKICAN SLAVERY. 19 

volantiu-y sorvitudo were created in those respective countries iu which 
that sorvilade exists ; and the shivery system!^ thus created are thas 
of course, of European origin. Ihit in this country the case is far dif- 
ferent. American Shivery can, indeed, scarcely be called an American 
Institution, tor it is not of American, but of African or of British 
origin. Th-i institutions of a portion of our country do, indeed, re- 
cognize the right of one class to the labor of another class, in return 
for substantial bcnetits conferred. Those institutions reco'jnize Sla- 
very, but th&y did not create it. And, in fact, so far are e\en those 
sectional institutions from having created Slavery, that they have in a. 
■yreat measure abolished the Slavery to which the African race was 
subject befoi-e it -was introduced upon our shores. X slave in Africa is 
the absolute property of his master, but the local institutions of our 
country give him com}>arative freedom. A master in this country 
cannot inliict, useless cruelties upon his slave with impunity. In Afri- 
ca, the black despot who owns a slave does own him in reality — has 
absolute power over him. And, because of his own barbarous condi- 
tion, he uses that absolute poAver in the most frightful modes. He 
torturey his sla\es for his amusement ; and, when he wishes for food 
rather than for amusement, he cats them. Now, the most orthodox 
of British j)Julanfhropists must allow that, in this respect, " the pecu- 
liar institutions" of our Southern States have rendered the condition 
of the skv/o better rather than worse. And, if he is thoughtful and 
honest, that philanthropist will also allow that, so far, our institutions 
afford an agTeeable contrast to those of his own country. The insti- 
tutions of the one country make men slaves, while those of the other 
give him (in comparison to his former condition) freedom ! 

The negro was a slave m Africa ; his black master " ownmg " him 
in fact — '' body and bones." But in this countiy his slaveiy is com- 
paratively no slavery at all. Here he is not absolutely owied by his 
master — the latter's property in him consisting solely in his right to 
his lahar. American institutions found the negro most absolutely a 
slave ; and have made of him a fat, laughing, law-protected Chris- 
tian ! Of this position we intend to prove the correctness more at 
length. But it is most undeniably true that the negroes were brought 
into this country, Slaves, in the very fullest sense of the term, and that 



20 BRITISH AXD 

here they aie comparatively free. The fact of their slavery they owe, 

(as do the British laborers) to "the pecxiliar institutions" of the por-t- 

sung " land of their fathers." The comparative //•ffd'o??? of the negroes 

they owe t<j the vilified and prayed-over imtitution^- oi' our Southern 

States! 

Ha\ ing now, perhaps, sufficiently considered the origin of llie Sla- 
very which we find existing in this country, we w ill turn to the cx)u- 
fcideration of the condition of the Anierioan Slaves. Thei'C are many 
well-meaning but unthinking old ladies in N»;w England and in Old 
England — old ladies of both sexes and of all ages — w hose fi-w ideas 
on this subject have been gathered from moral poiket-handkerchiefs, 
&c. and who almost believe that the slave is constantly — as they hav.^. 
seen him depicted — do-wTi ou his knees, an enormous cat-o'-ninc-tails 
over his head, his fettor*^! hands raised in supplication, and he ojacu- 
latins "Am I not a man and a brother T' And there are many othr-r 
people who, without exactly believing the Southerner'.- whole business 
to be slave-whipping, have, nevertheless, stra)ige, thoughtless, crude, 
and ignorant ideas of the slave's condition. In treating of thi=; branch 
of our subject, we shall consider, first, the slave's religious condition ; 
next, his moral and social condition ; and then his phys'-cal condition. 

There are so many opinions, and. those opinions are so widely dif- 
ferent, in regard to what is religion, that this is, j.erhaps, the most 
difficult portion of the subject to consider to the satisfaction of all our 
readers. If we believe the bible interpretation, which say.-. — "True 
Religion, and undefiled, Is to visit the fatherless and widow in their 
distress, and to keep ourseh es tmspotted from the world ;" or to " deal 
jiLstly, love mercy," d'c. wo do really think that, if this is Religion, we 
will find the Southern Slaves are as religious a people as any on the 
earth. Perhaps they do not exactly understand what the rights of 
property consist in, but, practically, they ai-e honest, as a general rule, 
and they, certainly, are kindOiearted and charitable, as every body 
knows who has been among them. No one can <loubt that tliey love 
mercy, who believes them to be so mimercifully used as some think 
them to be ; and there is, perhaps, no people upon earth who so fre- 
quently and kindly "\nsit the fatherless and widow in their distress." 
As to dealing justly, and keeping themselves unspotted from the 



AMEKyOAJN" SLATEKT". 21 

vvorl«.l ; though not entirely free from the opposite vices, they are at 
least as free from them as other people. There are some among them 
thievishly disposed, 3'etwe believe there are comparatively but few of 
them who would cousent to fail, and grow rich by the loss or ruin of 
friends who had trusted in them. And we believe they are so kindly 
and Christian-hearted a people, that but few of them would consent to 
live in idle luxury upon tithes wrung from the honest laljor of their 
starving fellow-creatures. If. on the other hand, we take other defini- 
tions of the word " Religion,'' we think the result will be the same. — 
If earnest prayer is made the criteiion, let any one pass within half a 
mile of a negro meeting during prayei"s, and he will certainly admit 
them to be as earnest as the average of Christians. And if church- 
'iiievibtrskip be made the criterion, the negro sla\"es will be found to 
be the most religious of our people, for there is a much larger propor- 
tion of them who are church members than there is of oui- white pop- 
ulation. There are 1)ut few of them Catholics, or high-church Epis- 
copalians, it is true ; but, except on sectarian grounds, their religion 
is not to be objected to because they are generally Baptists, ^Method- 
iste or Presbyterians. Those sects are as respectable as a)iy in om* 
country; and' the religion of the honest negro is not to be sneered 
down by sectarian objections, nor because his modes or places of wor- 
ship are neither fashionable nor grand. In short, judging of them by 
all fair criterions, the Southern Sla\es ha^ e among them not only as 
mucii profession of Rehgion, but as much, practical piety, a^s any 
three millions of people in the world ; not excepting the British priest- 
hood or American Abolitionists. 

We have proposed, in the next place, to speak of the moral and so- 
cial condition of the American Slaves. Their moral condition is, of 
course, so nearly allied to their rehgious condition, that, in some de- 
gree, what we have alread^^ said of the latter, may properly be applied 
to the former ako. The slaves have, undoubtedly, some " besetting- 
sins," the principal of which are, probably, a disposition toward l}'ing 
and atealing. But let us look at our police reports, and think of the 
thousands of unreported cases, before we admit that the slaves, as a 
class, are peculiarly addicted to stealing ; and let us think of the social 
lies, and the lies of trade, the custom-house oaths, and the thousand 



22 BRITISH AND 

false pn;tenc.^.s of society, before we admit them to be peculiarly ad- 
dicted to falsehood. As to '•crimes of deeper d\'e," if -vve may judge 
by newspaper reports, they are not one tenth as jnevalent among the 
slaves as they are among the free blacks, or <ncn amonsr the whites.. 
And this is not only a well-known fact, but it is th.' inevitable result 
of the slave's condition. Ilis condition fre(^s him from desire for, and 
opportunity to use, suddenly acquired wealth ; and, it free'^ him, at the 
same sirae, from the temptations to great crime held out by false 
honor, pride and ambition. Hence absolute erim<^ amor.g the :i)aves 
is generally confined to small larcenies, <uflu-ieiitly pur?i:rhed by a 
sharp reprimand, or, at most, a slight whipping. And in ca.se of more 
serious crime, the master's interest always secures for his slave a fair 
tiial, at least ; and such an interest as this is often wanting in the case 
of poor men aiTaigncd for crime, who have not i\\o rjood fortune to bo 
slaves. 

But there Is one matter in which the moral condition of the .slaves 
is represented to be veiy deplorable ; and that is. in the intercour.se of 
the sexes ; which is said to be more promiscuous, and le«s regulated 
by the moral law, than among other people, {'i this is so, as a gene- 
ral rule, among the slaves, then tho nioi-al guilt of it i« certainly not 
so great as it is in society where, because of necossaiy coaventional- 
isms, the consequences of the sin are more deplorable, as being more 
fatal to peace and happiness. The Abolitionists say that this .'"lOrt of 
thing is encouraged by slave owners in ordei' to furthei' the increase 
of slave population. Now, we all know that this increase of popula- 
tion is physically impossible of attainment hy pi-omiscnoxis intercourse. 
It may be, indeed, that mastei-s will, in some circumstance^, favor the 
intercourse of whicJi we speak, equally with or without man-iage ; but 
this is confined to a very few, and even with tliis foAv . the main re 
quirement of marriage in thi-< respect mnst ha ('umplieJ wit.h, for 
the object is increase, and adultery renders this impossible. To pre- 
vent adultery, and thus favor the increase <»f the specie*, is the prin- 
cipal object of the moral law in instituting the holy rite of maj'riage ; 
and the slave-owners interest and eflbrts fh\'or these requirements of 
the moral law, even in those few cases in which X\\f slave owner i« 
entirely unconscicDtious in the matter. But., though slave-owner? 



AMEBIC AX SLAVERY. 23 

differ in opiuion with some weak-minded people, they are human be- 
ings after all, and are no more devoid of consciences than they are of 
noses. This being the case, and it being also an undoubted truth, as- 
serted by all moral writers, that marriage is the condition most fa\or- 
able to increase, it necessarily follows that slave owners will encourage 
marriage among their sla-ves, for conscience' sake, and for interest's 
sake also. And looking from the theory to the fact, we find that the 
two agree entirely. As want cannot come upon the slaves noi- upon 
their children in consequence of marriage, and as their masteis are 
interested to encourage marriage by all the means in their power, so 
we find it to be a fact that adult American Slaves are more generally 
married than any other people. There are, of course, exceptions, but 
comparatively there are indeed but very few. And there al>solutely 
does not exist a people on the earth whose condition is so favorable 
to morality in this respect, as is the condition of these very American 
Slaves. 

This leads us to speak of the social condition of these people. — 
The greatest of strictly social evils are, undoubtedly, those difficulties 
or impediments which various circumstances — pride, poverty, &c. — 
thi'ow in the way of marriage, and the rearing of healthy and hajjpy 
children. The fact that novelists almost universally rely on the reci- 
tal of such difficulties, as the one sole means of exciting an interest, 
is sufficient proof of this. Business difficulties may be also considered 
social evils, but even they can be considered so, only because they 
produce those very other difficulties of which we speak. But it is use- 
less to waste words in proving that which is the theory of all philos- 
ophy, and which is acknowledged by the common sense and experi- 
ence of all humanity. It is, then, both undeniable and undenied. 
that the greatest of all evils, strictly social, are the difficulties in the 
way of happy marriage, and the rearing of healthy and happy chil- 
dren ; and it is ecjually undeniable that it is the master's interest to 
allow no such difficulties to occur in the case of his slaves, and that no. 
apprehensions of want can exist to prevent the formation of these so- 
cial ties by the slaves. And thus it results, as an unavoidable con- 
clusion and fact, that the slaves are, in their domestic relations, among 
the very happiest people upon earth. There are, indeed, some ex- 



24 Bi:iTISH AND 

ccptiofjs to this general rule ; for, as has been most eloqujully urged, 
slaves are sometimes sold, and families sundered. But for every mt^ 
such case among the slaves, there are twenty cases among the white 
people of cm- country, in wliich families arc sundered by the forma- 
tion of social or business relatioiLs. And if we compare their condi- 
tion in this respect, we shall find that forevery case among the negroes 
in which famihes are sundered, there are a /tw/trfrerf among the British 
laborere ; and tliat these cases among the latter ine\itably result from 
their condition. 

We must now turn to a brief consideration of the physical condi- 
tion of the slave ; and, in doing so, we will follow the plan in accord- 
ance with which we have considered his conchtiou in other respects. — 
We will speak of tJie princij^al physical evils incident to all people, 
and, by the slave's iininnnity or liability to those evils, we will judge 
of his physical coiulitiou. The first and greatest of physical e^^ls is, 
undoubtedly, ill health ; and, after that, physical suflFering from other 
■causes — hanger and thirst, and exposure to heat and cold, &c. It 
would seeiQ lilmost i-idiiulous to adduce statistics to pro\-c the health 
of the slaves, or arguments to show that their condition i.- one which 
is calculated to render them health}-. That they are the healthiest 
portion of our whole population is a tact so univei-sally known, that, 
to offer proof of it, would sccni about Jis useless sis would a labored 
ai-gumeot :o prove that they are negroes. Their regular hours — the 
etfect of municipal or plantation regulations — their simple, plenteous, 
and always wholesome food, their regular habits of exercise in the 
open air, with the sufficient clothing and shelter which it is the mas- 
ter's pride and interest to furnish them with — all conspire to render 
them what they ai-e so will known to be — perha})s the very healthiest 
race of beings in the whole %\ orld. It is not only notoriously true, but 
it is theoretically imj)ossible that it should be otherwise. But there 
is one physical evil which some of theu pretended frii-nds assert they 
arc particalarly subject to, and o\er which whole hog'shcads of croco- 
diles tears have been shed — that dreadful cat-o'-nine-taiLs ! The au- 
thor of this book lived for a time, when a very young boy, where every 
family had its negro slaves ; yot he cannot remember that he ever saw 
a slave sick, or ever saw one whipped, or even struck; or ever saw one 



AMEEICAN SLAVERY. 2S 

industriously bu^y ; and he scarcely ever saw one who was not laugh - 
' ing. And this is about the experience of our numerous southern ac- 
quaintJVi>:e. AVe ha\e often asked the question, and always received 
the same answer. Our informants had never seen a slave even struck 
by a white man. Two or three had heard of slaves being flogged in 
their neighborhood ; but it was for stealing — never for any thing else. 
We have never heard, or e\en read in Abolition pamphlets or news- 
papers any well authenticated account of cruel punishment for a 
slave's idleness or negligence. There are such cases, no doubt, some- 
times — perhaps a dozen every year, among three million slaves ; and 
of these the Abolition papers, with the aid of exaggeration and rep - 
etition, do make dreadful stories. But if the Abolition papers should 
seek for .such cases in the north with the same avidity, they Avould 
find ten times as many instances of cruel punishment inflicted by 
masters upon white apprentices and dependents. A month or two 
since, a woman in New York was clearly proved to have caused the 
death of <ln apprenticed girl, principally by flogging. Ajid cases of 
this kind, not so distinctly traceable to the cause, are not unfrequent. 
If this poor gu'l had been a negro slave, what torrents of Abolition 
execration and indignant abuse would have been let loose upon our 
* fellow citizens of the South, and on their Institutions ! It would have 
been piously multiplied into fifty cases of starvation, and as many, 
perhaps, of flogging to death ; and many a good-hearted but weak- 
headed man, for a year after, would have regarded ever Southerner 
he met with as a sort of murderer. She was, however, only a white 
girl ; and so nobody was indignant, and the Union was not dissolved ! 
Now, in sober fact, it is almost impossible for such cases to occur with 
the slaves. Masters, of course, will not sufter their slaves to be flogged 
to death with impunity. And even to cruelly punish a slave is to de- 
stroy his usefulness, and his market value also. If he is incurably 
idle or vicious, it is considered a great disgi-ace and punishment by 
the slave to be sold ; and it is the best policy, too, for the master, in 
such a case to sell the slave. But to flog him first will spoil the sale, 
for a slave who is known to have been severely flogged will not sell 
for so high a price as if he is supposed never to have deserved such 
treatment And a master will not wantonly punish a slave, when it 



26 BRITISH AND 

costs him some two or three himdred <Aolla)-s in cash, and hh own 
good name, too, among his neighbors. So we may see, both in the- 
oiy and in fact, the condition of the slaves, even in this respect, is 
not so bad as tliat of apprentices and dependants generally ; and, on 
the average, no worse than that of other laboring people. A5 for 
the other physical evils of which we have spoken — hunger, thirst, and 
injiirious exposure to heat or cold — the master's interest Ls the best 
security that sla\es will not l>e allowed to sufter much from either, 
while the proverbially robust health of the slaves is the be.st ©v idoac^ 
that they do not sufter in these respects. 

Excessive laboi-, also, may veiy properly 1>? considered a physical 
evil. In judging of the slave's condition in this respect, it is best to 
classify the slaves. That class which is engaged in agriculture com- 
prises about two-thirds of the able-bodied men. During about two 
hundred days in the year, these are actively employed on the planta- 
tions, working, according to circumstances, from seven to twelve houi-s 
a day ; though, even in the most hurried times, they ha\e generally 
a daily task given to them, which almost any white fermer would do 
in half the time. The balance of the year is comparatively unem- 
ployed. The remainder of the able-bodied men are servants, porters, 
or inferior mechanics, performing certainly not more than about haff 
the work that white men do in these capacities. The women are al- 
most entirely employed as domestics, and in the care of their masUa-'s 
children or their own. And as on all plantations tliese women are 
very numerous, and as their childi-en require scarcely any care at all, it 
necessarily results that they are three-fourths of the time Idle. The 
old people and the children grin and romp witli each other, and, dur- 
ing about one month in the year, perha})s, all hands join occasionally 
in husking corn, &c. Li line, taking them all ti»gcther, there are, 
perhaps, no other three milhoas of workiui/ p<:ople who do so little 
work. 

To sum \ip, then, as to the condition of the American Slave.-. ; we 
find that, while their social rank and mental acquirements are not so 
high as those of some other people, yet they are fully equal to the ave*-- 
age of their fellow-creatures so far as concerns their moral and religious 
state, their domestic happiness, and physical condition. 



AMERICAN SLAVERY. 21 

Dr. Palcy, and almost all other philosopliei's who have written on 
human happiness, agree in this — that the nearest attainable state to 
perfect hnman happiness is a condition of regular but not immoderate 
la])or, in whicli man, with the fewest and simplest wants, finds those 
few and simple wants abundantly and securely supplied, both for him- 
self and for those he loves. And we really do not know any cia^is of 
human beings who come nearer to this standard of human happiness 
than do the American Slaves. Their Slavery originated in Africa, 
and only those modifications of it which make it happy, are of Amer- 
ican origin. That " peculiai' institution,'" so sneered at by professional 
philanthropists, tbund these slaves the destined food, or the absolute, 
unprotected property of savage masters ; 'and it has made of them— 
as we said before — " fat, happy, useful, law-protected Chi-istians." 

The Contrast. 

Having now considered the condition of the British and American 
Slaves separately, we will next briefly compare their <?ondition, in order 
to judge whose condition is most, or perhaps, rather, the least, to be 
envied. 

In religious condition, we have seen that, both as to church mem- 
bership and practical Christianity, the negi'oes are about equal to the/ 
white population of this country generally. In religious edzicatjpn, 
they are, of course, inferior ; but even in this respect, we believ/ they 
are fully eqiial to the lower class of British laborers. Butj/^ secta- 
rians will take such widely different views of this branch of the sub- 
ject, and as moraUty is, of course, closely connected with it, we will, 
merely claiming equality in this respect for the negroes, pass on from 
the consideration of the comparative religious condition, to that of the 
moral condition of the two classes. 

In respect to the moral condition of the American Slaves, we have 
seen that their besetting sins are prinopally lying and petty pilfer- 
ings, for which a reprimand, or so'aM privation, or at the utmost, a 
shght whipping, is deemed sufficient punishment. We have seen 
that their condition tends generally to discourage adulteries, &e. it 
being their master's interest to prevent it. We have seen how they 
ate freed from the temptation to large larcenies, counterfeiting, fi-auds, 



28 



BRITISH A?fD 



highway robberies, &c. and the consequent murders which so often 
att.'Xid them. And, as tho contrast, we know the temptations to this 
catalogue of the great crimes, which operate on the poorer classes in 
Great Britain. And. in tin- tViglitful Hsts of murdei-s, robberies, &c. 
with which the l>riti>h ])apcTs teem, and in the fact that an immense 
proportion of the crimes committed in thLs country also are commit- 
ted by men of British birth, we may see the comparative results, in 
this respect, of the two systems of servitude we are considering. .\s 
to the comparati\e temjitations to the woincn of the American and 
British Slaves, let the reader retlect upon what he already knows of 
the needk-womcn of Lc>nd(>n, and the cities generally, and the still 
worse condition of woman in many of the Britisli rural districts, and 
in the factories, and on the beastly moral degradation of the mining 
districts generally. And then let the reader recur t<» what we have 
already said in the foregoing pages, as to the condition of American 
Slaves in this respect — the master's interest in the prevention of adul- 
teries, and the comparative universality of mari'iage which results 
fi-om this, and from the fact that the negro's wife and chikhcn are 
sure of a comfortable support, in good or l)ad times. And, when the 
reader has thus thought of the temjttations to morality, in this respect, 
on one side, and to itnmomiiO/ un the other, let him compare the two 
.96 he pleases. 
\^nd tliere is one criuit; — the \ery hlacke-t upon (.rime's dark cata- 
loguer^which, for ol)^ious reasons, never ((ccui-s among the negroes, 
but which is frightfully prevalent among the poor "jiopulace" of Bri- 
tain. We speak of Infanticide! Of the thousand iicwsjiapei-s sup- 
])orted by the six millions of British freemen, we scarceh" ever see one 
which does not chronicle some new case of this dreadful crime among 
the twenty-three milKons of British Slaves. The little corpse — the 
hapless httle victim of the artful sla\ery systems vi' l?ritain — is, we 
are told, "found," though the des])erate, starving, and Merc/we guilty 
mother, is generall}- ne\er known. And this dread crime is commit- 
ted twenty times as often as even this evidence of its commission ever 
comes to light. No eye beholds it, save the all-seeing tuid all-pitying 
eye of God ! And that great, comprehensive glance beholds the 
crime's temptation too! Jt sees the grinding misery that caused the 



AMERICANS SLAVERY. 29 

crime, and thf3 more dr«?adtul anguish which is its pnnishmeat. And 
that all-seeing eye. beholds, too, the cause of these great miseries and 
crimes — beholds it in tliat atroeions system of Slavery — the indi- 
rect robbery of unequal laws, made by the few to fortify their power, 
at the cost of right, of freedom, and even of life itself, to millions ! — 
Think oftener of this, oh, ye motley six millions of free and hajjpy 
Britons ! And you, " my Lords and liishops," think ye, too — oh, ):)ol- 
ished intellects and noble hearts — think, ye refined and pampered by 
that wealth, wrung by j^our artful laws from the weak grasp o( toiling 
misery — think, in the gorgeous pageant — think, in tlie paases of the 
revel — think — God sees it — all / ! 

As regards the comparative fiocial condition of the negro slave anci 
the inferior laborers of B)-itain, they are widely in that social happi- 
ness caiised by the negro's freedom from ciiixiety as to the welfare, the 
security and comfort of his wife and offspring. As to social pleasures, 
the negroes are as fond of music and dancing as the Briti.sh laborers 
are of beer oi' whiskey ; and as ihc. one passion is innocent, while the 
other is not ; so the effect of the one is to produce happ'.cess, and that 
of the other to produce degradation and misery. If what travellers say 
is to be rehed on, the British laborers are not peculiarly happy in their 
social relations. On the other hand, the negro slaves (whether it be 
that their tastes are superior, or because of their superior moral con- 
dition, or of their fi-eedom from anxiety for themselves and those they 
love) are represented always as being the most truly social of all hu- 
man beings. At all times, whether at work or in their cai'eless and 
most luxurious leisure, they are continually engaged in social pleasure 
of some kind — ^joking, dancing, singing or laughing — always content, 
social and gay. We must conclude, then, that, socially, the condition 
of the American Slaves is vastly preferable to that of the British la- 
borers. 

We will next compare the physical condition of the two classes. — 
n regard to health, we have seen that the negroes are equal, if not 
superior, to almost any other people ; while the laborb^ population 
of Britain are known to be necessarily far from a healthy people. — 
Even in the rural districts, the mere laborers and their families (be- 
cause of tiieir numerous privations) are far from enjoying such health 



*J() BRITISH AKD 

as that of the better class of farmers, and other people of higher con- 
ditiou in those same district*. And in the mining and manufacturing 
districts, (in which full half the British laborei-s work) they work too 
many hours a day in unhealthful eiuplujinenta or places. And pro- 
tracted labor of such kinds, accompanied with privation of wholesome 
air, &c. necessarily produces that ill-health from which British opera- 
tives in mines, factories, &c. do so notoriously and generally sufiFer. — 
We conld extract abundantly from British papers to show that they 
do thus generally suffer fi'om ill-health ; but almost every one has read 
these accounts. It is sufficient to remind our readcis of these well- 
known facts in order to con\ince them that British laborei-s, notori- 
ously and necessarily, are an unhealthy people, while American Slaves, 
as necessarily and notoriously, are jjerhaps the healthiest people in 
the world. 

Tn regard to punishment-', wc have seen that slave-whipping is gen- 
erally only for stealing ; and e^ ery one knows that steahng is punished 
more severely in Britain. As to severe flogglna; for idleness or negli- 
gence, we have seen it is very seldom resorted to with the slaves, and 
that it is contraiy to the master's interest that it should be. Our nu- 
merous southern acquaintances all tell us they never knew of such a 
case, but our British friends tell us a different storj- in regard to British 
apprentices — ay, and British wives too I To quote from a London 
pjiper, we learn that in many factories, "worn-out nature, sinking be- 
neath the task, is stimulated to fresh exertion by chasti5ement, some- 
times of the most barbarous kind," <tc. And, to be brief, (as we are 
compelled to) we ha\ e no room to doubt that there is twenty times as 
much flogging for idleness or neghgence among British apprentices 
and operatives, as among American Slaves. 

The principal point, however, in which the American Slave's con- 
dition is superior to that of the British laborer, is his comparative fiee- 
dom from want. No possiWe contingency can deprive the negro slave 
of Ufe's necessaries. If thereVis a failure in the crops, it makes the 
master poorer but not the slave. \If the master becomes poorer by 
failure of crops, it is only so much rswre necessary for him to take 
care of what he has left — his slave.s. Thus the slaves are not only free 
from want, but from the apprehension of it I But if there is a failure 



AMERICAK SLAVEEY. 31 

of crops in Britain, the whole world kno\vs how terrible are the conse- 
quences to the down-trodden laborers and inferior tenants. England 
is better <niarded than Ireland is from such calamities, but when, from 
any cause, the cost of food is enhanced, even in England, the conse- 
quent suffering falls exclusively upon the laboring poor. The American 
slave, on the contrary, never feels this suffering, nor e\en the least ap- 
prehension of it. If there is any suffering in the case, it falls entirely 
oa the master. 

It is proudly asserted that " however poor the British laborer L^, he 
is ti-ee ; he has no master but the law 1 " Xo master but the law ! — 
What, then, is the law ?" What is it ? It is the cunning but stern 
steel gauntlet of Aristocracy, which grasps the product of the laborer's 
toil ! " No master but the law ! " Hea\-en knows that this is master 
stern enough ! But it is said he owns no man as master, and that this 
is the difference between him and the Slave. And so it is — this is the 
precise difference ! Like the slave, he has a master who takes the pro- 
duce of his labor. But, nn-]ike the slave, he has ho master interested 
in his early and happy marriage, and in his health and condition, a»d 
who meets a heavy loss when he dies ! 

" R.ittle his bones over the stones ; 

He's only a pauper, whom nobody owns '. " 

The cruel Law (the harsh, stern master of the British lalx>rer) does not 
ozon him, save while he works. The law-making Aristocracy — crafty 
as it is cruel — grasps the ^«-o/jfo\ but avoids the resjionsibilities of 
ownership. The labor's produce is cunningly appropriated, but " no- 
body owns " the laborer ! The negro's master (for his own profit, and 
reputation, too) is necessarily interested in him from his birth to his 
death. On the other hand, the British laborer has also a master, stern 
as fate, but who, indi\idually, cares nothing for him. " He has no mas- 
ter hut the law '. " And this is precisely the reason why, as we have 
seen, the negi-o is a /iojjpy slave, and the other is simply a slave, wai^- 
out the happiness ! ! 

The Moral. 

To American Abohtionists.-— Jii Britain, there are eight times b& 
many Slaves as in the South/ Their Slavery, too, is eight times as 
cruel. Emancipate ^^.fwi/ They need no permading, as the negroes 



32 THE MORAL. 

do. The cost is only tlie passage money. It will cost no bloodshed ; 
nor will it peril that holy Union which (in the peace and freedom it 
frives ovu- country) is the main surety foi- your omi freedom, and for 
the hope of freedom to the world ! 

To British Aristocracy. — Your missionaries may sow their dragon's 
teeth of one sort in the South, and of another in the North, but the 
armed men our soil produces will strike for their country ! Itecall, 
then, your missionaries, and dry your philanthropic teal's ! Our coun- 
try, no doubt, is an example to your slaves you do not like ; but neither 
your tears nor your missionaries can destroy her 1 And a.s to other 
modes, remember Plattsburgh ! Send your armed " populace" here, 
and, when they can, they will desert 1 And we ha\ e no " Fugitive 
Slave " compact with Britain ! We will not return them ! And, if 
the number of emigrants, who leave you to avoid oppression, continues 
to increase as it has in the last ten yeare, in sixty years from now you 
will have not one laborer left in Britain, irom whose hard toil to draw 
your tithes, or pay your rent, or taxes. And the nmuber vjill increase, 
if emio-rants even ha\'e to bind themselves to a month's labor here to 
pay their passage. One only way exists to keep your laborers ; and you 
must come to it ! Give your laborers the right of suflVage, that they 
may destroy that Law which is their cruel master, and make/o;- theiyi- 
\elves a Law that shall be their servant ! In othor words : Emancipate 
yo^ Slaves, or our country's example and our country's ihips will do- 



lt for^ou! 



\ 



V»^<»»W»»> tOM—KIIKIW'WO'WWWWV-^''^ 



^l^^^^l 



of 



cowGRE^^. 



01^ 



899 



Si ^^' 



it lo. 





